Secondary results should be summarized and generalized rather than repeating what was found Hofmann, Hofmann, A. When necessary, mention the figures or tables in which results are presented see examples 3, 4, and 5. Here we show that wild bee pollinators provide important pollination services to crops around the globe with the economic value of this ecosystem service being on par with that provided by managed honey bees Kleijn et al.
Potts, S. Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation. Nature Communications, 6 , Miyazaki, T. Oral administration of Lactobacillus gasseri SBT is effective for preventing influenza in mice. Scientific Reports, 4 , Nickel-enriched seed and externally supplied nickel improve growth and alleviate foliar urea damage in soybean. Plant and Soil, , In adult bees, we show that ingestion of 0. A neonicotinoid impairs olfactory learning in Asian honey bees Apis cerana exposed as larvae or as adults.
Scientific Reports, 5, However, the effect of ABA on cellular growth and morphogenesis has not yet been characterized in detail. Abscisic acid induces ectopic outgrowth in epidermal cells through cortical microtubule reorganization in Arabidopsis thaliana. Scientific Reports, 5 , The experiments described in this work demonstrate that this technology was instrumental in improving lettuce N use efficiency under control and limiting NO3- regimens in laboratory, greenhouse, and field scenarios.
Gaxiola, R. Enhanced proton translocating pyrophosphatase activity improves nitrogen use efficiency in romaine lettuce. Plant Physiology, 3 , Genotypes were compared based on daily measurement of ARA over a soil drying cycle. Comparison of common bean Phaseolus vulgaris L. Here, you must highlight the strengths and weaknesses or limitations of your methods and approach Wallwork, Wallwork, A.
Basic steps to writing a paper: Practice makes perfect. The Bangkok Medical Journal, 13 1 , Limitations are generally discussed while assuming that there is no evidence to reject your hypothesis and that the experimental design used is reasonable Wallwork, If you do not criticize your own study, be sure that the reviewers will do so.
We present study limitations in papers for ethical and pragmatic reasons. You must explain the reasons for the limitations found Falavigna et al. In specific situations, you can lessen the impact of limitations by noting that other researchers have had experienced similar problem or that the current state of knowledge is unable to resolve the problems that you have encountered Wallwork, In example 11, the authors comment on limitations of the study concerning its temporal and geographic relevance, which limits the generalization of the conclusions drawn.
Is community persistence related to diversity? A test with prairie species in a long-term experiment. Basic and Applied Ecology, 14 3 , Plant architecture and growth response of kudzu Fabales: Fabaceae to simulated insect herbivory. Environmental Entomology, 42 5 , Public Health Nutrition, 19 6 , First, we were able to adjust for many covariates that could potentially confound our associations.
Although no data was available about complications that occurred, length of hospital stay was used as an indicator of major complications after surgery. An increase in physical activity after colorectal cancer surgery is associated with improved recovery of physical functioning: a prospective cohort study. BMC Cancer, 17 1 , The participants in the qualitative component also had different characteristics, which allowed us to explore a variety of experiences.
How does playing adapted sports affect quality of life of people with mobility limitations? Results from a mixed-method sequential explanatory study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 15, Once key findings have been presented and once the strengths and weaknesses of your study have been noted and discussed, the next step is to amplify the discussion by commenting on the key findings of your study in relation to studies available in the literature.
Confine yourself to discuss relevant work conducted in your field. Although you can mention studies not mentioned in the Introduction, it is not common to refer to a large number of studies for the first time in the Discussion Glasman-Deal, Glasman-Deal, H. Your study may confirm you could write: Our study confirms…, Our results are consistent with… or contradict Our study differs from…; However, other studies found that… the current state of knowledge.
You should also consider how the results of other studies may be combined with the results of your study to better comprehend the problem being investigated Wallwork, Wallwork, A.
You should consider using a figure to clarify the model and when appropriate describe ways to validate the model Hofmann, Hofmann, A. The strengths of your study relative to those of other studies may help you convince your readers about the quality of your research and the correctness of your conclusion, but do not hide the limitations of your study. By outlining concrete future strategies to apply, you will make a more convincing case to your readers Wallwork, Wallwork, A.
Unless you made so many errors that your results have been rendered unreliable, you certainly learned something from your study. Overall, differences between results may be explained by the ways in which the results were acquired.
If you cannot explain why the results are conflicting, say: We cannot explain why… When appropriate, you should explain assumptions or premises made upfront so that the validity of your research can be assessed.
Unexpected findings should also be discussed. If the study was conducted effectively, results contrary to what was expected require interpretation Wallwork, Wallwork, A.
These results may lead you to new discoveries and may change the focus of your study Hofmann, Hofmann, A. When unexpected findings alter the focus of your study, you should signal this to the reader To our surprise…, Surprisingly… and describe your unexpected findings briefly Hofmann, in a neutral and subjective manner Wallwork, In example 15, the authors describe both the strength and the limitations of their study relative to other studies.
In example 17, the value of N-resorption efficiency found by the authors Nevertheless, some limitations to our study should be addressed. First, neovascular AMD and dementia diagnoses, which rely on administrative claims data and International Classification of Diseases codes, may be less precise than those made according to standardized criteria. Association between neovascular age-related macular degeneration and dementia: a population-based case-control study in Taiwan.
In these studies the field-testing conditions may have included stresses other than heat, such as drought and various biotic stresses.
Wheat cellular thermotolerance is related to yield under heat stress. Euphytica, 2 , The higher average of N-resorption efficiency in this Stipa species seemed rather to be a consequence of its generally greater fitness to infertile habitats.
Further, this discrepancy may partly result from differences in methods used for calculation of resorption efficiency. Soil characteristics and nitrogen resorption in Stipa krylovii native to northern China. Plant and Soil, 1 , We did not study intentions but assessed the actual food intake frequencies. Awareness of climate change and the dietary choices of young adults in Finland: A population-based cross-sectional study. At this point in the Discussion, you should inform your readers the mechanisms that could have produced the phenomenon and the implications of the results for your research area.
According to Illari and Williamson Illari, P. What is a mechanism? Thinking about mechanisms across the sciences. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2 2 , Identifying theoretical or practical implications involves finding ways in which your results may be used or may lead to the development of new applications in the future.
Listing applications allows the reader to understand the value of your research beyond the narrow objectives of the study Glasman-Deal, Glasman-Deal, H. You must be careful here not to extrapolate the evidence provided by the data. It is also possible for your study to have no clear implications Glasman-Deal, In example 21, one mechanism was suggested in literature followed by a mechanism suggested by the study.
Arabidopsis cell expansion is controlled by a photothermal switch. Remember that the data are the data: nothing more, nothing less. Don't Write Two Results Sections! One of the most common mistakes that you can make when discussing the results of your study is to present a superficial interpretation of the findings that more or less re-states the results section of your paper.
Obviously, you must refer to your results when discussing them, but focus on the interpretion of those results, not just the data itself. Azar, Beth. Discussing Your Findings. Avoid Unwarranted Speculation! The discussion section should remain focused on the findings of your study. For example, if you studied the impact of foreign aid on increasing levels of education among the poor in Bangladesh, it's generally not appropriate to speculate about how your findings might apply to populations in other countries without drawing from existing studies to support your claim.
If you feel compelled to speculate, be certain that you clearly identify your comments as speculation or as a suggestion for where further research is needed. It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older.
This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.
The Discussion Search this Group Search. Organizing Academic Research Papers: 8. The Discussion. The Conclusion Toggle Dropdown Appendices Definition The purpose of the discussion is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in light of what was already known about the research problem being investigated, and to explain any new understanding or fresh insights about the problem after you've taken the findings into consideration.
Importance of a Good Discussion This section is often considered the most important part of a research paper because it most effectively demonstrates your ability as a researcher to think critically about an issue, to develop creative solutions to problems based on the findings, and to formulate a deeper, more profound understanding of the research problem you are studying.
Structure and Writing Style I. General Rules These are the general rules you should adopt when composing your discussion of the results : Do not be verbose or repetitive. Be concise and make your points clearly.
Avoid using jargon. Follow a logical stream of thought. Use the present verb tense, especially for established facts; however, refer to specific works and references in the past tense. If needed, use subheadings to help organize your presentation or to group your interpretations into themes. The Content The content of the discussion section of your paper most often includes : Explanation of results : comment on whether or not the results were expected and present explanations for the results; go into greater depth when explaining findings that were unexpected or especially profound.
If appropriate, note any unusual or unanticipated patterns or trends that emerged from your results and explain their meaning. References to previous research : compare your results with the findings from other studies, or use the studies to support a claim. This can include re-visiting key sources already cited in your literature review section, or, save them to cite later in the discussion section if they are more important to compare with your results than being part of the general research you cited to provide context and background information.
Deduction : a claim for how the results can be applied more generally. For example, describing lessons learned, proposing recommendations that can help improve a situation, or recommending best practices. Hypothesis : a more general claim or possible conclusion arising from the results [which may be proved or disproved in subsequent research]. Organization and Structure Keep the following sequential points in mind as you organize and write the discussion section of your paper: Think of your discussion as an inverted pyramid.
Organize the discussion from the general to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then to practice [if appropriate]. Use the same key terms, mode of narration, and verb tense [present] that you used when when describing the research problem in the introduction. Begin by briefly re-stating the research problem you were investigating and answer all of the research questions underpinning the problem that you posed in the introduction. University of Florida; Yellin, Linda L.
A Sociology Writer's Guide. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Interpretation is a subjective exercise. As such, you should always approach the selection and interpretation of your findings introspectively and to think critically about the possibility of judgmental biases unintentionally entering into discussions about the significance of your work. With this in mind, be careful that you do not read more into the findings than can be supported by the evidence you have gathered.
Remember that the data are the data: nothing more, nothing less. MacCoun, Robert J. Don't Write Two Results Sections! One of the most common mistakes that you can make when discussing the results of your study is to present a superficial interpretation of the findings that more or less re-states the results section of your paper. Obviously, you must refer to your results when discussing them, but focus on the interpretation of those results and their significance in relation to the research problem, not the data itself.
Azar, Beth. Avoid Unwarranted Speculation! The discussion section should remain focused on the findings of your study. For example, if the purpose of your research was to measure the impact of foreign aid on increasing access to education among disadvantaged children in Bangladesh, it would not be appropriate to speculate about how your findings might apply to populations in other countries without drawing from existing studies to support your claim or if analysis of other countries was not a part of your original research design.
If you feel compelled to speculate, do so in the form of describing possible implications or explaining possible impacts. Be certain that you clearly identify your comments as speculation or as a suggestion for where further research is needed.
The Discussion. Search this Guide Search. Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper Offers detailed guidance on how to develop, organize, and write a college-level research paper in the social and behavioral sciences. The Abstract Executive Summary 4. The Introduction The C. The Discussion Limitations of the Study 9. The Conclusion Appendices Definition The purpose of the discussion section is to interpret and describe the significance of your findings in relation to what was already known about the research problem being investigated and to explain any new understanding or insights that emerged as a result of your research.
Structure and Writing Style I. General Rules These are the general rules you should adopt when composing your discussion of the results : Do not be verbose or repetitive; be concise and make your points clearly Avoid the use of jargon or undefined technical language Follow a logical stream of thought; in general, interpret and discuss the significance of your findings in the same sequence you described them in your results section [a notable exception is to begin by highlighting an unexpected result or a finding that can grab the reader's attention] Use the present verb tense, especially for established facts; however, refer to specific works or prior studies in the past tense If needed, use subheadings to help organize your discussion or to categorize your interpretations into themes II.
The Content The content of the discussion section of your paper most often includes : Explanation of results : Comment on whether or not the results were expected for each set of findings; go into greater depth to explain findings that were unexpected or especially profound.
If appropriate, note any unusual or unanticipated patterns or trends that emerged from your results and explain their meaning in relation to the research problem.
References to previous research : Either compare your results with the findings from other studies or use the studies to support a claim. This can include re-visiting key sources already cited in your literature review section, or, save them to cite later in the discussion section if they are more important to compare with your results instead of being a part of the general literature review of prior research used to provide context and background information.
Note that you can make this decision to highlight specific studies after you have begun writing the discussion section. Deduction : A claim for how the results can be applied more generally.
For example, describing lessons learned, proposing recommendations that can help improve a situation, or highlighting best practices. Hypothesis : A more general claim or possible conclusion arising from the results [which may be proved or disproved in subsequent research]. This can be framed as new research questions that emerged as a consequence of your analysis.
Organization and Structure Keep the following sequential points in mind as you organize and write the discussion section of your paper: Think of your discussion as an inverted pyramid.
Organize the discussion from the general to the specific, linking your findings to the literature, then to theory, then to practice [if appropriate]. Use the same key terms, narrative style, and verb tense [present] that you used when describing the research problem in your introduction. Begin by briefly re-stating the research problem you were investigating and answer all of the research questions underpinning the problem that you posed in the introduction.
Describe the patterns, principles, and relationships shown by each major findings and place them in proper perspective.
0コメント